Open Thread: Ballot Measures

Use this space to talk about the ballot measures.

For reference, here's the list:

You'll also be able to find election results at OregonLive and KGW.

Comments

  • APANO (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Congratulations to the coalitions and activists in Defend Oregon. It looks like the ballot measures are heading in our direction! APANO, the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, a volunteer-led civic group, was proud to be a part of the work on voter reg, education and GOTV.

  • (Show?)

    Measure 64 looks like it may pass. Talk about a poison pill on an otherwise great night.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sal, isn't 64 a statute?

    The stupidest thing the legislature did in the 1990s may have been rewriting M 47 into M 50 without a court challenge or taking double majority out of it (given that a different measure which failed was openly a double majority measure.

    Sizemore measures notoriously are so poorly written that implementation as written is well nigh impossible.

    If there isn't a legal challenge to 64 on the basis of the actual language of the measure (if only to clarify the language) the legislature needs to clarify if not modify the measure.

    A ballot measure passing is not written in stone. And if Sizemore passed a measure while under court sanction, is the measure legal?

    All these things will need to be examined if the final vote shows the measure passing. We need clearly written laws.

  • (Show?)

    LT - I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to any legal issues. From a political standpoint, I think it will be difficult for the unions to persuade the legislature to accept an outright repeal. A better strategy will be to roll some modifications into a bigger campaign finance statute.

  • (Show?)

    As a proud and active Democrat, I'm glad Oregon voters have seen through Measure 65. As of 10:55pm, at least, it's failing badly with a meager 36% support.

    It's interesting that opposition to this electoral experiment is near-evenly spread across the 36 counties, with only Wasco and Benton counties standing out with over 50% support.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Unions and non-profits should file an immediate court challenge on this one. I don't think it will stand up to free speech provisions on the state or federal level.

  • Chris #12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What happened here? Such a huge margin for Obama--did those folks not vote down ticket, or did some vote wrong on Senator, M64? Sucks...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I think it will be difficult for the unions to persuade the legislature to accept an outright repeal."

    Sal, I wasn't talking about "the unions", but about clarifying whether PTA can meet in a school if PTA is lobbying the legislature.

    Nonprofits hold before/after school programs in school buildings. If those nonprofits are part of any coalition lobbying the legislature on anything (incl. the role or nonprofits in Oregon life), what does Measure 64 say if legally challenged?

    What about the food bank or United Way on a public employee's pay check deduction? Or the abovementioned child care employees of a nonprofit who are working in school buildings? Can they agree to have a small amount taken out of their paycheck to help a food bank, or must they write a personal check to the foodbank and not involve their employer?

    What about holding a food drive at a fire house or a city hall?

    Sizemore has always wanted to make this about Team Sizemore against Team Union, and any Oregonian who is not a member of either relegated to the sidelines. Must one be a union member to challenge this in court? How about a lawyer who chairs the board of a nonprofit?

  • (Show?)

    Just remember that some counties, like Multnomah, still have a lot of votes to count. And measures like M64 are failing horribly in those counties (62% no on M64 in Multnomah County).

    Items that are that close likely won't be once the more progressive/liberal counties finally get their votes counted.

    I just don't understand why it is taking so long for the votes to be counted. At 8 p.m., Multnomah County put up their results. It was timed at 7:44 and had just over 24% turnout listed on it. An hour later, we added about a percent and a half to that. Another hour later, another percent and a half. We've climbed a whole 6% from 8 p.m. to midnight. Something is wrong with that picture.

  • (Show?)

    Chris, M64 had a great ballot title. Most voters are pretty low information on ballot measures, so it's pretty tough to overcome that. Maybe Jenni will be right about the final result. LT - Not sure how to respond. M64 was a dagger at the heart of public employee unions who spent millions to defeat it. It may be the case that other groups oppose the measure in court and so on, but there is no question that public employees will be leading the charge in whatever action is taken.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M64 passage means we are encouraging more abuse by Sizemore. This clearly shows we need to alter the initiative process by screening the issues themselves. We need to determine weather or not we have voted no or yes on a simular and/or exact issue in previous elections and allow only those we haven't voted on for a while (say at least 2 cycles before we can vote on an issue again). We also need to have something that says that anybody convicted of certain crimes or has any judgement against them connected to the political process has a credibility ans security issue and, therefore, can not author public initiatives. We need to stop the abuse.

    Kate Brown...are you listening?

  • (Show?)

    Eric Your proposal seems prima facie unworkable.

    What would constitute "similar" measures?

    Why should a measure be embargoed for a number of elections after it has been defeated? Would the margin matter (e.g. would a 50.1 / 49.9 measure be embargoed just like 70 / 30 measure)?

    Why would a civil judgment count the same as a criminal judgment?

    Would someone who is paroled and served their time be able to be involved?

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Why should a measure be embargoed for a number of elections after it has been defeated?"

    Because NO means NO. It is to be respected as such. Repeatedly putting an issue on the ballot after we continually tell them NO is abusive and childish. It shows extreme disrespect for the people like a spoiled 6-year-old who doesn't know the meaning of respecting others wishes.

    When the people say NO - they mean it. That's it. Period. End of discussion on that issue. It is not a suggestion to ignore the people's wishes and submit it again.

    "What would constitute "similar" measures?"

    Remember the OCA and their constant hatred measures? Or have you forgotten already?

  • Nathan A (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a person who generally votes Republican, used to help collect signatures for Sizemore issues, I am glad to see some of the ones I got on the ballot failing.

    However, I must say that I am VERY disappointed in Oregon for passing both 57 and 61. Although 57 is the lesser of two evils I would prefer no evil at all. Our criminal justice system needs a rebuild and I hope that Obama and the Democrats in control will tackle this issue this time around. This is the CHANGE WE NEED.

    As a side note, Congrats to all the Dems (Progressives?) who helped pull off this amazing sweep of seats. Truly a historic event.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "However, I must say that I am VERY disappointed in Oregon for passing both 57 and 61."

    I wouldn't worry about it. Based on past Oregon history of such contreversial outcomes, and rumors abounding, they are doomed to be challenged in court, thereby making all Yes votes on both mesaures wasted votes.

  • (Show?)

    Eric,

    The problem is you'd know "similar" when you saw it, and so would I, but we might not see it in the same thing, so you need a definition of similar that can actually be applied with some consistency.

    Here's an example. Washington just passed physician assisted suicide close to the Oregon model, i.e. requires self-administration of drugs by the person committing suicide.

    Now, Washington defeated a physician assisted suicide measure in the '90s that included a provision for doctors to administer the drugs under some circumstances.

    Is that similar? Assisted suicide in both cases?

    Or different? Assisted suicide in terms of providing means, vs. active euthanasia in some cases?

    It might be possible to write, the problem is not entirely different from that of prohibition of multiple questions in current ballot measures, but at minimum it would involve the same kind and frequency of court wrangling.

    Paul's question is quite legitimate in terms of practicability.

  • Tamerlane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm calling it now, and I'm calling it first -- M61 FAILS OUTRIGHT. Check it out -- Yes votes have fallen behind No votes, with the heft of the votes yet to be counted coming in from progressive Multnomah and Lane counties. So, there you go. I stand by my earlier assertions that: 1) M61 could be defeated; 2) Chip Shields was wrong and "progressives" should have voted NO on M57. It's a New Day in Oregon. Now, in the future, let's stand up to mandatory minimums.

  • Hank (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For all the Thursday morning quarterbacks who are going to pretend they "knew" all along that Measure 61 could have been defeated on its own--you need to step outside of Portland and sniff some reality. If an alternative hadn't been offered, M61 would have cleared 60 percent easy.

    But since you weren't involved in any way, I suppose it's easy to second guess the expertise of every political expert in the state.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not sure that's true, Hank. It's possible, but also possible that had we put up a concerted effort to defeat M61 on the merits, instead of clouding the issue with a "not quite as bad" measure, we could have succeeded. It was hard to argue outright against M61 because Dems had our own lesser version. Instead of "Is this the best way to fight crime?" the issue became "Our proposal works almost as well and costs a lot less."

    Yeah I'm second-guessing, but the Democrats just handed us a half billion dollar tough-on-crime measure with no attached funding at the same time state revenues are tanking, and we're claiming victory? M57 is going to absolutely screw health care and education next session, and no supermajority of Dems in the House or Senate can fix it.

  • Joel H (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Two things seem likely to me: The "citizen's measure" vs. "politician's measure" ads were compelling and for that matter -- if Hank is right and 61 had broad appeal -- accurate: this kind of manipulation sends a signal that the legislature has contempt for its constituency. That might have caused a backlash and artificially increased the vote for 61.

    Second, at least 11% of Oregonians voted yes on both. Presumably, all of them were confused, but how many of those were on the anti-mandatory-minimums side? It's possible that 3-4% of the yes-on-61 votes were from people who actually wanted to defeat it.

open discussion

connect with blueoregon